Re: info types question

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 12:30:44AM +0100, Stefan Burström wrote:
> Hello Daniel
> 
> On 2005-11-22, you wrote:
> 
> >> The former I guess doesn't really matter, but the later really defines
> >> int to be an unsigned 64 bit type. Which cannot be what is desired?
> >> Of course I can ignore all types defined int libgcc2.c but I'd like to
> >> find out the 'logic' behind this.
> >
> > These probably indicate "typedefs" without a name, probably definitions
> > of base types.
> 
> I see.I guess this is just the way things are then? Or is there a way for
> gdb to figure out if this is a basic type to make sure that it is indicated
> in the output?

I don't know - probably we can improve it.  However...

> The reason for this is that I'd like to be able to resolve types into their
> basic types when I dump variables in my frontend. Eg,
> 
> typedef char * STRPTR;
> STRPTR mystring;
> 
> Would allow me to print the mystring variable as a real string since I can
> find out that the type of mystring really is char *.
> 
> Btw, the mi output of info types is broken.Only the name is output, and not
> the type. Is this a known issue?

... it sounds like you're using MI, so let's focus on improving the MI
output instead.  Could you show an example of this problem?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC